Predicting the Response to Non-invasive Brain Stimulation in Stroke

被引:21
|
作者
Ovadia-Caro, Smadar [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Khalil, Ahmed A. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Sehm, Bernhard [1 ]
Villringer, Arno [1 ,2 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
Nikulin, Vadim V. [1 ,3 ,7 ,8 ]
Nazarova, Maria [8 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Max Planck Inst Human Cognit & Brain Sci, Dept Neurol, Leipzig, Germany
[2] Humboldt Univ, Berlin Sch Mind & Brain, Berlin, Germany
[3] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Dept Neurol, Neurophys Grp, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany
[4] Charite Univ Med Berlin, Ctr Stroke Res Berlin, Berlin, Germany
[5] Univ Hosp Leipzig, Dept Cognit Neurol, Leipzig, Germany
[6] Univ Leipzig, Fac Med, Leipzig, Germany
[7] Bernstein Ctr Computat Neurosci, Berlin, Germany
[8] Natl Res Univ, Higher Sch Econ, Inst Cognit Neurosci, Ctr Cognit & Decis Making, Moscow, Russia
[9] Fed State Budget Inst, Minist Healthcare Russian Federat, Fed Ctr Cerebrovasc Pathol & Stroke, Moscow, Russia
来源
FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY | 2019年 / 10卷
关键词
NIBS; stroke; variability; functional connectivity; ongoing neuronal oscillations; long-range temporal correlations; fMRI; EEG; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; RANGE TEMPORAL CORRELATIONS; STATE FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY; ACUTE ISCHEMIC-STROKE; THETA BURST STIMULATION; PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX; UPPER-LIMB FUNCTION; INTERINDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY; NETWORK CONNECTIVITY; CONTROLLED TRIAL;
D O I
10.3389/fneur.2019.00302
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Neuromodulatory non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques are experimental therapies for improving motor function after stroke. The aim of neuromodulation is to enhance adaptive or suppress maladaptive processes of post-stroke reorganization. However, results on the effectiveness of these methods, which include transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), are mixed. The results of recent large clinical trials and meta-analyses range from no improvement in motor function (1, 2) to moderate improvement (1–6) at the group level. Though evidence supporting efficacy is better for TMS (7) than for tDCS (6), individual stroke patients' response to NIBS is nevertheless extremely variable (8–11). This is reminiscent of the development of other stroke therapies, such as thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, where early studies were largely mixed before patient selection was refined (12, 13). NIBS in stroke faces a similar challenge of refining patient selection and individualizing protocols to determine its therapeutic potential. The variable response to NIBS in stroke patients is a byproduct of multiple factors that influence response to NIBS in healthy controls (14, 15), as well as factors that influence the response specifically in stroke patients (8). The former include factors such as age, gender, anatomical variability, intake of stimulant substances, and baseline neurophysiological state but also technical factors such as stimulation intensity, TMS coil orientation, and stimulation duration (16–18). Specifically in stroke patients, symptom severity, size and location of lesions, stroke etiology, and time from symptom onset to intervention influence the response to NIBS as well. Importantly, these different variability-causing factors interact to affect the response to NIBS, such as the potential amplification of inter-individual differences in brain anatomy (19, 20) by stroke lesions (21, 22). Such interactions make understanding the causes of NIBS response variability in stroke challenging. Although the need for individualized stimulation protocols in stroke patients is widely accepted, it is still unclear exactly how this will be achieved. At the very least, the factors influencing variability in healthy subjects should be controlled as much as possible through appropriate and careful study design (23) and checklist-based reporting of factors during data collection (24). To address the specific factors for stroke, patient selection for NIBS should be informed by pathophysiological processes. This requires that we know which processes are relevant, that we are capable of measuring them, and that we know the optimum timing and patient-related characteristics for treatment administration. Copyright © 2019 Ovadia-Caro, Khalil, Sehm, Villringer, Nikulin and Nazarova.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Invasive and Non-invasive Stimulation of the Obese Human Brain
    Pleger, Burkhard
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE, 2018, 12
  • [22] Functional Recovery after Stroke and the Therapeutic Relevance of Non-invasive Brain Stimulation
    Tscherpel, Caroline
    Grefkes, Christian
    [J]. KLINISCHE NEUROPHYSIOLOGIE, 2020, 51 (04) : 214 - 223
  • [23] BRAIN NETWORK MODULATION WITH NON-INVASIVE BRAIN STIMULATION
    Li, Lucia
    Violante, Ines
    Ross, Ewan
    Leech, Rob
    Hampshire, Adam
    Carmichael, David
    Sharp, David
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2016, 87 (12):
  • [24] Neuroplasticity and non-invasive brain stimulation in the developing brain
    Bandeira, Igor D.
    Lins-Silva, Daniel H.
    Barouh, Judah L.
    Faria-Guimaraes, Daniela
    Dorea-Bandeira, Ingrid
    Souza, Lucca S.
    Alves, Gustavo S.
    Brunoni, Andr E. R.
    Nitsche, Michael
    Fregni, Felipe
    Lucena, Rita
    [J]. NON-INVASIVE BRAIN STIMULATION (NIBS) IN NEURODEVELOPMENTAL DISORDERS, 2021, 264 : 57 - 89
  • [25] Non-invasive brain stimulation might act in synergy with invasive brain stimulation in dystonia
    Beudel, M.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, 2017, 24 (11) : 1321 - 1322
  • [26] Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurological diseases
    Schulz, Robert
    Gerloff, Christian
    Hummel, Friedhelm C.
    [J]. NEUROPHARMACOLOGY, 2013, 64 : 579 - 587
  • [27] The promises and perils of non-invasive brain stimulation
    Heinrichs, Jan-Hendrik
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW AND PSYCHIATRY, 2012, 35 (02) : 121 - 129
  • [28] Non-invasive brain stimulation in athletic competition
    Mehrsafar, Amir Hossien
    Gazerani, Parisa
    [J]. APUNTS-MEDICINA DE L ESPORT, 2019, 54 (203): : 105 - 106
  • [29] Non-invasive brain current stimulation in neurorehabilitation
    Coslett, H. Branch
    Hamilton, Roy
    [J]. RESTORATIVE NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE, 2011, 29 (06) : 361 - 363
  • [30] Opportunities and obstacles in non-invasive brain stimulation
    Toth, Jake
    Kurtin, Danielle Lauren
    Brosnan, Meadhbh
    Arvaneh, Mahnaz
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, 2024, 18